Hi Anne,
On 17/10/2007, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:36:06 +0200, Mark Birbeck
> <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps you could post that 'reasonable explanation' when you have a
> > moment, or alternatively give the meeting a different title, and not
> > imply that the XHTML WG was included.
>
> There's no XHTML WG and therefore no such implication, as far as I can
> tell.
I need to check that I understand you. Are you saying that when
Richard sends a message to the lists, with the subject:
Meeting with SVG, XHTML, WAI people to move forward on ARIA
as a cross-cutting technology
I shouldn't worry about it, because by "XHTML people" Richard didn't
mean the W3C's XHTML 2 Working Group, but he meant some other kind of
'people', who just happen to like XHTML?
The only other meaning I can put on your words is that you are saying
"there is no XHTML WG...there is only an XHTML 2 WG", but I'm assuming
that you wouldn't waste your valuable time sending such a pointless
comment. :) So I'll stick with the first interpretation.
Anyway, the problem is that as the email I'm referring to was copied
to the XHTML 2 WG's mailing-list, and it had a title referring to
"XHTML people", unbiased bystanders with a bit of common sense would
almost certainly conclude that the "XHTML people" mentioned in the
subject line were actually representative of the working group.
I'd prefer that any such bystanders didn't get that impression.
Regards,
Mark
--
Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer
mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com
standards. innovation.